Woody Allen's daughter details how she was sexually abused by him in the NYT

[Charles]

No, his actions mean he's attracted to young women, not prepubescent girls. I also don't think he fell for her when she turned 18, but again, there's a difference between a 15/16 year old girl and a 7 year old girl. Like I said, I think he's creepy, but I also try to look at everything as unbiased as possible. Given everything, there's really no way anyone can say who's lying. Which is why no charges have been brought. And yes, that sucks.

I guess he could take a lie detector test, but even those can be unreliable.

 

[guccimamma]

he's no different than those 50/60/70 year old men who go to thailand to be with kids…or are on "to catch a predator" except he is brilliant/famous, so he can't do these things.

so he adopts kids, marries his "daughter", maybe he hurts them…maybe he just lives in his own twisted fantasy world. who knows. but he's a creep. the world is crawling with them. mia should have realized it earlier.

 

[basicandorganic]

That quote from him is VERY troubling. It cant even be defended as being in jest, like you’d be joking around in an interview and say something outrageous like “Yeah I’m into orgies with farm animals”. This was a comment about a very real and appalling everyday issue and for him to have actually said that and people have actually normalised his behaviour that it doesn’t raise alarm bells? I cant understand that at all.

It would be one thing if he didn't have any allegations against him later on in life, or if he didn't marry a girl to whom he was a father figure from the age of 9-12 with, and then go later on to say that their relationship is "paternal."

Liking younger women is completely different from seeking one out, grooming her, etc.

Fina-****ingly! Everything I wanted to articulate about that toolwad's so-called piece of journalism. I am so damn sick of seeing Mia's affairs and alleged craziness dragged into this fracas as if her being a hoe back in the day makes Dylan's claims any less valid. And some of these journos cant even be bothered to get the facts right. Mia Farrow is NOT friends with Roman Polanski. She answered that question on Twitter when someone took her to task over it. I've also seen horrible comments that she's a "crazy baby collector" because God forbid that a woman be moved by the plight of the world's orphans and want to adopt them all. I hope Angelina Jolie gets called that too.

My two cents to the media who are still caping for this creepy ****er: go on, take a leap of faith, drop your kids off with Woody Allen for a weekend and then come back to me with how he's innocent until proven guilty.

This. The Slate article plus the summary of what actually went on during the investigation sums it up. I cannot understand why people keep painting Mia as crazy while completely ignoring the fact that psychologists were on Allen's payroll, etc.

I don't understand how people can grasp for straws like this for the sake of defending WA.

Dylan even herself has stated that one of the worst moments of her life was when her mother even questioned her.

No, his actions mean he's attracted to young women, not prepubescent girls. I also don't think he fell for her when she turned 18, but again, there's a difference between a 15/16 year old girl and a 7 year old girl. Like I said, I think he's creepy, but I also try to look at everything as unbiased as possible. Given everything, there's really no way anyone can say who's lying. Which is why no charges have been brought. And yes, that sucks.

I guess he could take a lie detector test, but even those can be unreliable.

After he said that thing about sleeping with fifteen 12-year-olds not being a surprise to anyone, about 5 years later he was dating Mia. Soon-Yi was about 9 or 12. He adopted two of her children (Dylan and Moses) shortly after. They had a child together. People are painting this as if he was not present until later on in their lives when in fact he was a significant presence.

I don't believe someone who write strange letters to random 13-year-old fans would wait until their love interest turned 15 or 16. I don't buy it. He clearly likes young girls, there is nothing wrong with that if you choose to restrain yourself. In this case, he clearly didn't (because he thinks he's above the law and morals, which he clearly is.)

 

[Coco Belle]

Charles, seriously?

This whole "well he just likes young girls! a 15 year old is nothing like a 7 year old!" here's a surprise... they are actually VERY SIMILAR.

A 15 year old girl is a legal minor. Unless he happens to live in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is unusually low, a man who has relations with a 15 year old girl IS A PAEDOPHILE. Like, he is raping her if he has sex with her. Like, she cannot consent to any kind of sexual activity with him.... it's rape.

Grooming a child (and a 15-year-old IS a child, regardless of what any "red-blooded" man may think -- that a child has reached puberty IS NOT an invitation for sex) is also paedophilia. It is almost impossible to fathom that Soon Yi wasn't groomed by her now-husband. These kinds of major taboo-breaking actions don't happen by surprise.

Beyond her legal status, A 15-year-old is incredibly vulnerable. She doesn't have critical thinking skills or the ability to understand the consequences of actions. She has an incredibly fragile self image. She can be manipulated with almost no effort.

Throw on top of that, the specifics of Soon Yi's life. She was basically found living in a damn trash can somewhere until she was ~7 years old... Soon Yi was so vulnerable. So much more vulnerable than the average little girl.

WHY on earth does Woody Allen deserve the benefit of the doubt, when this is his history? Yeah, he can cry about how he was never put on trial... he was never put on trial because he influenced the legal process and ensured he would never be brought to justice.

Pity the poor girls (and boys) who have survived abuse or who are still being abused, who read the utter nonsense spouted in defence of this man.

 

[Charles]

Yes seriously.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

Being attracted a girl who's 16 who looks like an adult, is entirely different from being attracted to a 10 year old who looks like a little girl.

And again, I'm not saying he didn't do anything. I'm simply saying that none of us knows that he did and that the fact that he dated a girl when she was 17/18/19 doesn't automatically mean he's a pedo.

 

[LeeLooDallasMP]

Yes seriously.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

Being attracted a girl who's 16 who looks like an adult, is entirely different from being attracted to a 10 year old who looks like a little girl.

And again, I'm not saying he didn't do anything. I'm simply saying that none of us knows that he did and that the fact that he dated a girl when she was 17/18/19 doesn't automatically mean he's a pedo.

First, the victim is the one who brought it back into the open by publishing an article in the NY times about it. Second, choosing to believe the victim's story as she personally recounted it is not "making up hypotheses". It's facts, public record, and Dylan's letter giving all the details. So your "we don't know what happened" based on the fact that he is also attracted to girls aged 13/15/16/17 is rather counter productive, because even at that age they are vulnerable. And the cloak of silence of your way of thinking does nothing but keep victims from speaking especially when coupled with the fact the fight to be believed.

 

[nycmom]

Yes seriously.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

Being attracted a girl who's 16 who looks like an adult, is entirely different from being attracted to a 10 year old who looks like a little girl.

And again, I'm not saying he didn't do anything. I'm simply saying that none of us knows that he did and that the fact that he dated a girl when she was 17/18/19 doesn't automatically mean he's a pedo.

This is why pedophiles often "drop" their victims once they reach a certain age (usually puberty) and move onto another target.

 

[Coco Belle]

Yes seriously.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

Being attracted a girl who's 16 who looks like an adult, is entirely different from being attracted to a 10 year old who looks like a little girl.

And again, I'm not saying he didn't do anything. I'm simply saying that none of us knows that he did and that the fact that he dated a girl when she was 17/18/19 doesn't automatically mean he's a pedo.

We're not talking attraction here, but action.

You're right, I shouldn't throw around diagnostic language when really I'm talking about behaviour; yes, it is one thing to be attracted to a 15 or 16-year-old, but this is a person who ACTS on the attraction, and then is accused of ACTING on attraction to another, younger girl, from the same family, with similar vulnerabilities.

I find it revolting that child victims have their testimony dismissed out of hand (couched as "well we don't know what happened!"), even when a behaviour pattern is present. That's really the long and the short of it.

Woody Allen has all the money in the world to defend himself, and he should defend himself, because his history and words stink to high heaven. I just find it really strange that others insist on defending him too.

 

[basicandorganic]

Are we really debating whether being an ephebophile (and acting on it) is any more wrong than being a pedophile (and acting on it)? Really? I would say it's even worse, considering to act on it requires more manipulation and grooming.

I'm always astounded as to how semantic people get when they're trying to find loopholes.


FYI Soon-Yi looked more like a 12 year old at 18, so I don't see where all this hypothetical "it's okay to be attracted to a 16 year old girl if she looks 20" comes from. We're not talking about Courtney Stodden here. We're talking about an oprhan who he started acting like a father towards from age 9 (or 12, depending on her birth date.) A girl who wasn't adopted until 7, may I add. He even chose to adopt her brothers and sisters. He was clearly a father figure. He didn't "just" meet a 17 year old girl at a bar. He was present in her life from a very young age.

He himself even describes their relationship as "paternal" which IMO is a huge red flag based on the way that they met that he indeed DID groom her. A lot of people have "paternal" relationships with their partner, due to psychological reasons BUT if you pair that with the fact that he was a father-figure to her, it's quite clear the grooming goes back very early. So. The point is moot. All signs point one way. You can argue semantics all you like, but he's practically admitted it himself.

(This clearly goes beyond "just dating a 16 year old girl" and "he's a pedophile" if that's not clear enough.)

 

[iluvmybags]

I've followed this story over the years & have read this entire thread. Its funny how some people say that Woody Allen gets a "pass" because he's a famous movie director/actor or think this is why he hadn't been prosecuted for his "crimes", yet it sure looks like he's been persecuted over & over again. The court of public opinion swears he's guilty, calling him a criminal, a pervert, a pedophile & more. Nearly all of the comments in this thread alone point to his guilt, so I don't see where he's getting a "pass"

People say he's undeserving of recognition & rewards for his work because of these accusations. I have to say that I disagree. These accusations & stories have to do with his private life, not his professional one. I've never heard an actress or co-worker (in the movie business) make any kind of accusations against him. I've never read that he used sexual coercion or did anything criminal during the making of any of his movies. If he weren't in the public eye - if he were, say, a lawyer or a real estate agent or a construction worker or a small business owner - would it be any of our business? If he excelled in any of those professions & deserved recognition, should his personal life interfere & prevent him from being recognized for doing a good job? Why shouldn't he be recognized for his contribution to the movie/entertainment business because of something that he's been accused of in his personal life? The two are separate & should remain separate. Would any of us want our personal life to have an affect on our accomplishments at work?

As for the accusations against him, here's my two cents, for what its worth --

There was a 25 year age difference between my husband & I. We had been married for more than 25 years when he passed away. We lived together for 2 years before we got married. I was 20 when we got married, 18 when we moved in together - you do the math. The relationship didn't begin with our moving in together. My husband was also a gymnastics coach & I was one of his former gymnasts. I had known him - and my family had known him - for years.

As a result of our marriage, we have two beautiful children, an amazing granddaughter & a lifetime of happy memories. Was our marriage perfect? No, it was typical of almost every other married couple. We had our ups & downs, but for the most part, we were happy & in love. I never felt like a victim. I never thought of my husband as a pedophile or a criminal. I never saw anything wrong with our relationship - it wasn't "icky" or "gross" - we were just two people who fell in love under very unusual circumstances. Our friends & family accepted it because we were happy & weren't hurting anyone (although it took some longer than others to finally accept it). My husband was also a fireman for 30 years & was honored with various awards & recognition. He was admired & looked up to & spoken of highly by his co-workers & those who's lives he helped & saved. His personal life never interfered with his professional one. He also made jokes about himself & comments that to us & our friends were funny & silly, and weren't indicative of his "sexual choices or preferences".

My husband's ex-wife, however, thought otherwise. They had 2 daughters together & she did her best to drive a wedge between them & kept them out of our lives. On the day my father died, when we were supposed to be visiting him at the hospital, my husband was sitting in the police station defending himself against accusations that he sexually assaulted his younger daughter. She later admitted that she made the whole thing up, but wanted to keep her mother happy & put an end to this battle between them. When my husband died, he was estranged from his daughters. They are now very much a part of our lives. My daughter & his older daughter have the kind of sisterly relationship my husband always hoped they would have. She & I have had more than a few talks & she's shared only some of the things that her mother used to tell them when they were little. How she made sure they were afraid of their father & never wanted to see him (some of it, she says, is too painful & she doesn't want to hurt me by telling me now). They were deprived of a relationship with their father - a man who loved them dearly & fought until his heart was broken & he just couldn't do it anymore, to see them & be a part of their lives.

Just because Woody Allen married Soon Yi, doesn't automatically mean that he's a pedophile & that he sexually abused his daughter Dylan. Of course it makes it easier for people to believe Dylan & Mia & Rowan's accusations because that happened. And while I don't agree with everything Barbara Walters said on THE VIEW, I get the point she was trying to make - they have been in a long, committed relationship that appears to be stable, and they have two children together. If she's a friend of theirs, she's seen things the public hasn't seen & probably knows things we don't know as well. While I understood Sheri Shepherd's opinion, she doesn't have personal knowledge of this situation and is basing her opinion on what she's read & heard.

This whole thing is messy & sad & there are no winners. I'm sure the Golden Globes decision to honor Woody with a lifetime achievement award stirred up a lot of feelings & emotions from all those involved, but I disagree with how its been handled. This is a private family matter. While I sympathize with Dylan - and I agree, she may very well believe this to be the truth - I don't agree or see the point in writing an open letter to the public about this. Its not our business, and the recognition he received for his professional life should not be affected by accusations in his personal life, especially when the accusations were made so long ago & investigated. Mia Farrow herself said she didn't want to subject her daughter to a long drawn out legal mess. So what was the point to the open letter other than to shame Woody Allen at a time he should be celebrating his professional accomplishment? Most of the public made their mind up about Woody Allen long ago. We didn't need Dylan's letter or Rowan's tweets to remind us now or change our minds. Did anyone stop to think what all this could be doing to the children he has with Soon Yi? They were carrying on with the lives, mostly in private & now all of a sudden, they've been thrust into the spotlight & are being talked about in the media & public.

I know many will disagree with me, many will raise their eyebrows and shake their heads in disgust. We all have an opinion and feelings on this subject, some based on our own personal experiences. Many of you shared yours, these are mine.

 

[Charles]

First, the victim is the one who brought it back into the open by publishing an article in the NY times about it. Second, choosing to believe the victim's story as she personally recounted it is not "making up hypotheses". It's facts, public record, and Dylan's letter giving all the details. So your "we don't know what happened" based on the fact that he is also attracted to girls aged 13/15/16/17 is rather counter productive, because even at that age they are vulnerable. And the cloak of silence of your way of thinking does nothing but keep victims from speaking especially when coupled with the fact the fight to be believed.

Sure it is. Unless you were there, you have no idea if what she's saying was reality. It's not legal fact until it's been proven. I could say that I can fly. Does that mean it's fact just cause I said it??
I'm also not saying she needs to remain silent, but this has already been addressed. If she wanted justice, why not bring civil charges against him??

We're not talking attraction here, but action.

You're right, I shouldn't throw around diagnostic language when really I'm talking about behaviour; yes, it is one thing to be attracted to a 15 or 16-year-old, but this is a person who ACTS on the attraction, and then is accused of ACTING on attraction to another, younger girl, from the same family, with similar vulnerabilities.

I find it revolting that child victims have their testimony dismissed out of hand (couched as "well we don't know what happened!"), even when a behaviour pattern is present. That's really the long and the short of it.

Woody Allen has all the money in the world to defend himself, and he should defend himself, because his history and words stink to high heaven. I just find it really strange that others insist on defending him too.

Sorry, but just cause someone acts by dating a 17 year old doesn't mean he/she will act on molesting a 7 year old. They're two completely different situations and not related at all.

I'm not dismissing her accounts. I think this specific case is different cause there's so much crap going on. I simply don't know who to believe because of that. I'm not defending him at all. Based on what I've read, I feel it's entirely possible (possible, not fact) that Dylan's story, while it might be true in her head, wasn't reality. The majority of all of this is speculation.

 

[Swanky]

I don't think anyone here is changing anyone elses mind. No one can help how they feel about this.

 

[Ladybug09]

Charles, seriously?

This whole "well he just likes young girls! a 15 year old is nothing like a 7 year old!" here's a surprise... they are actually VERY SIMILAR.

A 15 year old girl is a legal minor. Unless he happens to live in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is unusually low, a man who has relations with a 15 year old girl IS A PAEDOPHILE. Like, he is raping her if he has sex with her. Like, she cannot consent to any kind of sexual activity with him.... it's rape.

Grooming a child (and a 15-year-old IS a child, regardless of what any "red-blooded" man may think -- that a child has reached puberty IS NOT an invitation for sex) is also paedophilia. It is almost impossible to fathom that Soon Yi wasn't groomed by her now-husband. These kinds of major taboo-breaking actions don't happen by surprise.

Beyond her legal status, A 15-year-old is incredibly vulnerable. She doesn't have critical thinking skills or the ability to understand the consequences of actions. She has an incredibly fragile self image. She can be manipulated with almost no effort.

Throw on top of that, the specifics of Soon Yi's life. She was basically found living in a damn trash can somewhere until she was ~7 years old... Soon Yi was so vulnerable. So much more vulnerable than the average little girl.

WHY on earth does Woody Allen deserve the benefit of the doubt, when this is his history? Yeah, he can cry about how he was never put on trial... he was never put on trial because he influenced the legal process and ensured he would never be brought to justice.

Pity the poor girls (and boys) who have survived abuse or who are still being abused, who read the utter nonsense spouted in defence of this man.

Cosign...

 

[LeeLooDallasMP]

@ iluvmybags

As much as that is how you feel, I believe that your logic is the most flawed... Ever heard about serial killers/rapists who are perfect husband and colleagues?? So because he didn't do the sexual coercion like other happen to do it means he is any less of a pedophile? Ever also heard of turning a blind eye on many perverts and deviant in Hollywood, sports, music and such?

Um... yes dear, if a construction worker happened to be accused, he will lose his job just as fast, because NOBODY would be comfortable to work around him. Do not lessen Woody Allen power and status, it gives many passes and influence.

Indeed, it's Woody Allen so let's put the "separate the artist from the work" defense. But the Empire State Building worker has contributed to one of the most famous building out there, but funny had he sexually assaulted children, one can't separate the artist from the work? Jimmy Savile honors have been ripped off and rightfully so. How the eff' can't it be discussed since the person might be your neighbour and it might as well happen to your children? And yes if one takes the example of your husband's profession, sure as hell that another fireman really sexually assaulted children, the image of him seen as a hero is tainted and he would be ripped off his awards rightfully so. An Olympic Champion is supposed to inspire people but he must keep his medals because that's okay, sexually assaulting children is separate. An athlete can inspire children to lead a healthy life, hard work and other dedication, can you tell me that it won't taint the so-called inspiration?....

As for your story, for the life of me what part of you were NOT your husband's daughter, he had NOT been a paternal figure to you through and through you don't get? That your husband has been falsely accused of sexual assault is one horrible thing that you went through but that you were by NO means related to him as stepdaughter/adopted daughter nor anything is another. Dylan came up with the accusations before the whole Soon Yi thing blew up. It's amazing how you like many other don't see that major difference when you share your experience, it's not the same for heaven's sake...

Victims out there should stay silent because it's a private matter? So because it happened to others, they shouln't get any support and stay and deal with it in private? And you sharing your own private matter here but Dylan's shouldn't is different because...? Isn't she any less a victim? Have I missed something?

So no, you want the victim to go away, sorry to burst the convenient bubble of "private matter", like I said to another poster, she wrote the open letter to have a voice that the public could not just ignore as they have in the past. This kind of discourse is exactly what we need. She put it out there because she wants the world to talk about it. She's tired of being silent. That way of thinking is such a counter productive idea and harmful towards victims of sex crimes and their coming forward. If you think just because they weren't raped by someone famous that rape victims don't have people, friends, and the community comment on what happened to them, discuss it, and form options, then you are naive. And once again the cloak of silence of "I don't want to hear about it" has done nothing but keep victims from speaking. Victims of sex crimes have more doubt thrown at them than obvious made up conspiracy theories.

Now god forbid because it's an inconvenient time for Woody Allen because he's getting awards. I didn't know she had to check his schedule and behave accordingly. Woody Allen has been winning awards for the past 2 decades, she could have come up way before that, now god forbid if enough is enough and she speaks up.

 

[LeeLooDallasMP]

Sure it is. Unless you were there, you have no idea if what she's saying was reality. It's not legal fact until it's been proven. I could say that I can fly. Does that mean it's fact just cause I said it??
I'm also not saying she needs to remain silent, but this has already been addressed. If she wanted justice, why not bring civil charges against him??

Arguing semantics and trivializing much? LOL, yeah okay.....